Suitability of 444s working for TPE

[Steve14]

Food for thought, given that the 444s would need a pantograph to run from somewhere like Manchester to Glasgow; what other mods would be needed? Travelling on the Windsor Waterloo route today and they seem as if they would be decent for a long run as mentioned!

 

[bb21]

I didn't think 444s were cleared to go to Windsor(?)

 

[RobShipway]

The 444's are more likely to be found doing the Waterloo - Bournemouth/Weymouth route.

The 450's and 485/5's do the route to Windsor.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't think SWT will ever give up the 444s and a new build is impossible, part because it's a discontinued product and partly because the design now falls foul of the regs

 

[D365]

Travelling on the Windsor Waterloo route today and they seem as if they would be decent for a long run as mentioned!

If you were in fact travelling on a Class 450 (SWT suburban blue livery, 1/3 + 2/3 doors), the 10 Class 350/4s that were ordered for TPE are an equivalent product, an updated model in fact.

 

[Nym]

They're too long so no doubles could run and the doors are in the wrong place...

 

[Steve14]

The 444's are more likely to be found doing the Waterloo - Bournemouth/Weymouth route.

The 450's and 485/5's do the route to Windsor.

I know that lol, reread my question.

I understand that they aren't suitable to go down to Windsor given the length of each carriage.

I reckon they would be good as a 8 car with a pantograph along the Manc to Glasgow route and call at principle stations like the pendolinos do. I also think they could be re-engineered to travel upto 125mph. Defo an attractive EMU

 

[edwin_m]

Something similar to a 444, a modern EMU with single doors positioned near the ends of each coach, could be suitable for a range of longer-distance electric journeys. With TPE there's the issue of whether it would be better with double doors at one third and two third positions leading to larger vestibules. This would provide more standing space and quicker boarding/alighting on the frequent occasions where TPE is rammed with shorter-distance passengers. The pros and cons of these two layouts have been debated many times on this forum.

 

[RobShipway]

Something similar to a 444, a modern EMU with single doors positioned near the ends of each coach, could be suitable for a range of longer-distance electric journeys. With TPE there's the issue of whether it would be better with double doors at one third and two third positions leading to larger vestibules. This would provide more standing space and quicker boarding/alighting on the frequent occasions where TPE is rammed with shorter-distance passengers. The pros and cons of these two layouts have been debated many times on this forum.

I don't think that a class 444 type train would work as I believe the regulations are now such that a disabled person in a wheelchair should be able to access any carriage within a train, not just the carriage where the doors have been made wider so that a wheelchair can enter.

This is why the doors on any carriage should be double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions which also makes it easier for people to disembark from the train and enter the train.

 

[northwichcat]

They're too long so no doubles could run and the doors are in the wrong place...

While I don't think 444s to TPE is a viable solution I don't see how when doubled up they are too long for Scottish services, given 11 car Pendolinos call at most stations TPE serve along that route. Being too long for Manchester Oxford Rd or Manchester Airport is easily solved by sending portions to Liverpool or Blackpool, as proposed.

If anything I think 5 car 444s would potentially be too short if portion working was introduced. I think you'd need 6 + 4 car formations in 24m stock is used or 8 + 4 if 20m stock is used, with the longer formation going to Manchester and the shorter one going to Liverpool or Blackpool.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester to Glasgow

I think the next TPE franchise will be sending 2/3rds of Scottish services to Edinburgh and 1/3rd to Edinburgh for two reasons:
1. DfT expressed concerns over there being too many Glasgow services from the WCML and not enough Edinburgh services.
2. If a 2 hourly Liverpool/Blackpool service is introduced via portion working it means those places will get direct trains to both Edinburgh and Glasgow opposed to one or the other.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think that a class 444 type train would work as I believe the regulations are now such that a disabled person in a wheelchair should be able to access any carriage within a train, not just the carriage where the doors have been made wider so that a wheelchair can enter.

Are you suggesting the 444 has wider doors into the wheelchair area? I believe they are the same size as the others, they are positioned nearer the middle of the carriage and there's just more interior space near them.

The 444 layout does not allow for the possibility of a First Class passenger in a wheelchair, and that's a known dispensation, but it isn't because of anything to do with the exterior doors as such.

 

[edwin_m]

Never heard of that one. I'm not aware of any train where some external doors are wider than others to allow wheelchair access. As far as I know the only requirements are to provide wheelchair spaces on the train, including in First Class if provided, with access to exterior doors both sides and to an accessible toilet if the train has toilets.

 

[Juniper Driver]

I don't think SWT will ever give up the 444s and a new build is impossible, part because it's a discontinued product and partly because the design now falls foul of the regs

Hi,just out of interest what regs do they fall foul of?

 

[Haydn1971]

Hi,just out of interest what regs do they fall foul of?

It's the rail forums regs of course - these specifically state that any train built longer ago than six months before the post in question couldn't be built today because of "the regs" - contravention of these regulations will result in a humour bypass

 

[AM9]

Hi,just out of interest what regs do they fall foul of?

Wouldn't they fails the crumple zone requirements for 100mph trains? The 450s/350s do, so unless that had 380 type fronts they are non-compliant with current new train requirements.
Siemens seem to have lost interest in the design now so any new train offered would probably be based on the Verve range and likely with 1/3 2/3 doors as looks like being the norm in the future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's the rail forums regs of course - these specifically state that any train built longer ago than six months before the post in question couldn't be built today because of "the regs" - contravention of these regulations will result in a humour bypass

I can sense that in 15-20 years when the 444s are nearing the end of their life, the 'we love 442s' mob will switch their adherence to the 444s.

 

[RobShipway]

Are you suggesting the 444 has wider doors into the wheelchair area? I believe they are the same size as the others, they are positioned nearer the middle of the carriage and there's just more interior space near them.

The 444 layout does not allow for the possibility of a First Class passenger in a wheelchair, and that's a known dispensation, but it isn't because of anything to do with the exterior doors as such.

When was the last time you looked at a class 444, you look at the digram of class 44 within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_444 the second carriage from the left is where the disabled carriage resides and the door is not at the end as it is a wider door than the end doors on the other carriages. It is not by much that it is a wider door, but it is a wider door to specify disability regulations.

 

[Lrd]

When was the last time you looked at a class 444, you look at the digram of class 44 within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_444 the second carriage from the left is where the disabled carriage resides and the door is not at the end as it is a wider door than the end doors on the other carriages. It is not by much that it is a wider door, but it is a wider door to specify disability regulations.

It doesn't look wider to me, looks the same width as all the others. But, I highly doubt that the picture is to scale.

 

[MCR247]

When was the last time you looked at a class 444, you look at the digram of class 44 within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_444 the second carriage from the left is where the disabled carriage resides and the door is not at the end as it is a wider door than the end doors on the other carriages. It is not by much that it is a wider door, but it is a wider door to specify disability regulations.

AFAIK that door is the same size just in a different position. I don't use 444s often though so I'll happily be corrected

I don't think that a class 444 type train would work as I believe the regulations are now such that a disabled person in a wheelchair should be able to access any carriage within a train, not just the carriage where the doors have been made wider so that a wheelchair can enter.

This is why the doors on any carriage should be double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions which also makes it easier for people to disembark from the train and enter the train.

What regulations are these? AFAIK a person in a wheelchair needs to be able to get on at the door nearest the wheelchair space, as well as have access to a universal toilet (in both classes). What would the point be in a regulation stating they must be able to get into any carriage? What would they be wanting to enter a carriage with a small toilet and no wheelchair space for? Whilst I'm not up to date with these regulations I really doubt that is true as it just isn't logical? "A person in a wheelchair must be able to enter any door, even if they're unable to go any further once through said door" just doesn't make sense to me!

 

[RobShipway]

AFAIK that door is the same size just in a different position. I don't use 444s often though so I'll happily be corrected


What regulations are these? AFAIK a person in a wheelchair needs to be able to get on at the door nearest the wheelchair space, as well as have access to a universal toilet (in both classes). What would the point be in a regulation stating they must be able to get into any carriage? What would they be wanting to enter a carriage with a small toilet and no wheelchair space for? Whilst I'm not up to date with these regulations I really doubt that is true as it just isn't logical? "A person in a wheelchair must be able to enter any door, even if they're unable to go any further once through said door" just doesn't make sense to me!

See link https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-2015-government-policy-accessible-transport note below from said link:

The government is committed to providing an accessible rail system which offers disabled people the same opportunities to travel as other people. The Railways for all strategy explains what Britain’s railway industry is doing to improve access for disabled people.

The Equality Act 2010 requires all station operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people. This document provides guidance to all station operators so that they continue to improve access to their services.

Accessible train station design for disabled people: a code of practice, November 2011

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....or-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf

Within the above document is the comment as follows:

The rail industry is committed to providing a comparable level of
service to disabled people and non-disabled people wherever
possible. Provision of accurate information combined with flexible
and accessible means of purchasing tickets, making reservations
and finding station information, improves the confidence of disabled
people to make journeys by rail.
Within the timeframe of this Strategy, improvements will continue
to be made by ATOC in the provision of information on NRES,
nationalrail.co.uk and in the APRS system.

The above to states that all doors and toilets on trains should be able to be accessed by the disabled and that they should not have to be pigeon holed into one area of a train.

 

[Helvellyn]

When was the last time you looked at a class 444, you look at the digram of class 44 within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_444 the second carriage from the left is where the disabled carriage resides and the door is not at the end as it is a wider door than the end doors on the other carriages. It is not by much that it is a wider door, but it is a wider door to specify disability regulations.

Several times a week when I work them as a Guard. The door is not wider. It is positioned where it is because of the adjacent (empty) pantograph well, under which you can find the universal toilet and two seating bays of four (around tables). That pantograph well is the only reason you don't have an end door on this vehicle.

 

[Emblematic]

See link https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-2015-government-policy-accessible-transport note below from said link:

The government is committed to providing an accessible rail system which offers disabled people the same opportunities to travel as other people. The Railways for all strategy explains what Britain’s railway industry is doing to improve access for disabled people.

The Equality Act 2010 requires all station operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people. This document provides guidance to all station operators so that they continue to improve access to their services.

Accessible train station design for disabled people: a code of practice, November 2011

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....or-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf

Within the above document is the comment as follows:

The rail industry is committed to providing a comparable level of
service to disabled people and non-disabled people wherever
possible. Provision of accurate information combined with flexible
and accessible means of purchasing tickets, making reservations
and finding station information, improves the confidence of disabled
people to make journeys by rail.
Within the timeframe of this Strategy, improvements will continue
to be made by ATOC in the provision of information on NRES,
nationalrail.co.uk and in the APRS system.

The above to states that all doors and toilets on trains should be able to be accessed by the disabled and that they should not have to be pigeon holed into one area of a train.

All well and good, but PRM TSI (2008/164/EC) simply says:

• All exterior passenger doorways shall have a minimum clear useable width of 800mm when open.
• The door to be used for wheelchair access shall be clearly labelled with a sign in accordance with Annex N Clauses N.3 and N.4.

So doors can be different sizes, as long as all meet the above requirement, and a special area for wheelchairs will continue to be provided with a door specially marked. Class 444 complies with PRM TSI, with single dispensation for, I believe, ceiling height.

 

[MCR247]

See link https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-2015-government-policy-accessible-transport note below from said link:

The government is committed to providing an accessible rail system which offers disabled people the same opportunities to travel as other people. The Railways for all strategy explains what Britain’s railway industry is doing to improve access for disabled people.

The Equality Act 2010 requires all station operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people. This document provides guidance to all station operators so that they continue to improve access to their services.

Accessible train station design for disabled people: a code of practice, November 2011

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....or-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf

Within the above document is the comment as follows:

The rail industry is committed to providing a comparable level of
service to disabled people and non-disabled people wherever
possible. Provision of accurate information combined with flexible
and accessible means of purchasing tickets, making reservations
and finding station information, improves the confidence of disabled
people to make journeys by rail.
Within the timeframe of this Strategy, improvements will continue
to be made by ATOC in the provision of information on NRES,
nationalrail.co.uk and in the APRS system.

The above to states that all doors and toilets on trains should be able to be accessed by the disabled and that they should not have to be pigeon holed into one area of a train.

I can't read the documents atm, but I can't see anything in what you've quoted that backs you up?

 

[ag51ruk]

See link https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-2015-government-policy-accessible-transport note below from said link:

The government is committed to providing an accessible rail system which offers disabled people the same opportunities to travel as other people. The Railways for all strategy explains what Britain’s railway industry is doing to improve access for disabled people.

The Equality Act 2010 requires all station operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people. This document provides guidance to all station operators so that they continue to improve access to their services.

Accessible train station design for disabled people: a code of practice, November 2011

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....or-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf

Within the above document is the comment as follows:

The rail industry is committed to providing a comparable level of
service to disabled people and non-disabled people wherever
possible. Provision of accurate information combined with flexible
and accessible means of purchasing tickets, making reservations
and finding station information, improves the confidence of disabled
people to make journeys by rail.
Within the timeframe of this Strategy, improvements will continue
to be made by ATOC in the provision of information on NRES,
nationalrail.co.uk and in the APRS system.

The above to states that all doors and toilets on trains should be able to be accessed by the disabled and that they should not have to be pigeon holed into one area of a train.

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting those rules - a quick look at the design for IEP will show you that doors don't need to be 1/3 and 2/3, or that all toilets need to be fully accessible.

The EU requirements on designated wheelchair spaces and doorways are in this doc for info

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriservJ.L_.2014.356.01.0110.01.ENG Section 4.2.2.2 to 4.2.2.5 being most relevant to this discussion

 

[swt_passenger]

When was the last time you looked at a class 444,

I use them a few times a week, and as others have said already, the door is the same size as the rest.

 

[RobShipway]

I use them a few times a week, and as others have said already, the door is the same size as the rest.

From when I have used the class 444's and from photos, the disability door looks different in size than the other doors if on;y being larger by a few millimeters.

 

[Helvellyn]

From when I have used the class 444's and from photos, the disability door looks different in size than the other doors if on;y being larger by a few millimeters.

Does somebody have to post pictures of two 444 doors with a tape measure against them to prove they are all the same width?

 

[Andyh82]

The 444 is a fine unit in my opinion and it's a shame the 185s weren't built to the same spec (5 coaches, end doors)

I'm sure dwell times wouldn't have increased as surely half the delay is caused by being faced with hardly any free seats once you get on, which 5 coaches would have fixed.

What are the door controls like on 444s, can the conductor open them from more than one location and are they selective if not all doors were on the platform?

 

[Domh245]

I'm sure dwell times wouldn't have increased as surely half the delay is caused by being faced with hardly any free seats once you get on, which 5 coaches would have fixed.

What are the door controls like on 444s, can the conductor open them from more than one location and are they selective if not all doors were on the platform?

Most delay comes from people not moving down inside the coach quickly enough, so it takes longer for people to board as there isn't the space in the vestibule, hence delay. Whilst 5 coaches would have given more seats, the door layout would have made it even more slow for people to move down inside the coach, as those in the middle would have to then fight their way past all the other people in there to alight, and unless you are going to the end station, you don't usually want to take that risk


As for doors, My understanding is that there is a door control panel in each doorway, but as with all of the original desiros, there isn't SDO functionality, just unit deselect (which locks out all of the doors in the chosen unit) so you have to make sure that the single train by itself will fit into all the platforms. Apparently, there is an SDO 'patch' being rolled out across the fleet, but I haven't heard much about it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apparently, there is an SDO 'patch' being rolled out across the fleet, but I haven't heard much about it.

It's a year late this month, but it's far more than a patch. Also included on track balises at about 300 locations...

 

[ainsworth74]

This thread is for discussing the suitability of 444s for TPE. If people wish to discuss wider rolling stock issues of the TPE franchise then I would suggest they do so on this thread. If they wish to discuss the future of 442s then I would ask that they start a new thread to do that.

Thanks